Risk management, strategy and analysis from DeloitteCONTENT FROM OUR SPONSORPlease note: The Wall Street Journal News Department was not involved in the creation of the content below.

Text Size

Regular

Medium

Large

Google+

Print

Getting the Right People in the Right Seats

Dr. Ajit Kambil

“Getting the right people in the right seats” is a phrase and goal we often hear from seasoned managers during their transitions. Having the wrong people in critical positions can cost you valuable time—often your most critical and unrecoverable resource—as you have to review and repair work.

Having the wrong people on the team can also cost you credibility as a leader among your peers and even your staff if you are viewed as carrying and not attending to non-performers in a timely way.

Accomplishing this goal begins when leaders quickly gauge the capabilities of their direct reports and other critical staff and decide if they will try to improve individual capabilities or recruit new individuals.

Assessing the Team

A starting point for assessing your team is to peruse performance reviews. Sadly, these are often thin documents that are insufficiently informative. Sometimes, the previous leader remains in the organization and you can directly get their input on the strengths and weaknesses of key staff, but ultimately, you have to make your own observations and assessments.

In the first month to 45 days, you are probably forming a gut-level impression of different direct reports and some key staff below that level. After 30 days, asking seven questions can help provide you a quick snapshot of your key staff and their capabilities:

1. How confident are you in each of your direct reports and key staff below them?

2. Who gives you and your team positive energy, and who sucks energy from you?

3. Who would you take with you if you left tomorrow?

4. Who is a good brand ambassador to other organizations for you?

5. Who is or is not a team player?

6. Who is a flight or retirement risk?

7. Who is technically competent but managerially incapable?

Each of these questions is discussed below.

1. Confidence: Generally, you want to have confidence in three key areas: competence, judgment of your staff in critical situations and execution abilities. To assess competence, it is useful to frame the Occam’s razor question for each functional area. For example, CFOs may ask their tax directors what they would do differently if there were no taxes, and why? A good question can provide insight into competence. Good observations probably lend more insight into the behaviors and judgment of staff in a business and social context. Thus, 360 evaluations of staff can provide insight into the observations of others regarding the competence and judgment of your staff.

2. Energy: Those who drain your energy are probably energy vampires in the broader organization. You generally want to build a team around those who give positive energy to the organization.

3. Stars: Asking who you would like to take with you is a good way to identify high potentials and stars in your organization. They are likely to be your “keepers.”

4. Brand ambassadors: In most functions, you need folks who are technically competent and able to represent the brand you want to create for your organization. Good brand ambassadors can partner with clients and help enhance the reputation of your organization.

5. Team players: Generally, you are likely to want team players in your organization. You will have to decide your strategy with those who choose not to team.

6. Flight and retirement risks: You need to identify flight and retirement risks and establish retention or succession plans to mitigate these risks.

7. Technically competent/managerially challenged: Another challenge is a direct report who is technically very good but a poor manager. This can manifest itself in poor delegation skills and bottlenecking of work in the department, turnover on a team or poor hiring choices.

While there are other important questions, the above seven questions can help you identify what you need to attend to in order to improve talent in your organization. Generally, you have three options to deal with talent performance issues: replace problematic team members, reassign staff or remediate performance gaps through training or coaching. Ideally, you will want to have high confidence in all of your direct reports. For reports you are not sure about, you will want to assign them key tasks to test either their competence or judgment to determine your confidence in them within 45 to 90 days. For those you do not have confidence in, you will likely want to replace or reassign them.

When we ask executives about their single biggest regret after their first year of transition, we often hear they did not move quickly enough on the talent performance issues in their organizations. Realistically, it usually takes between six months and a year in most companies to assess the team and upgrade key staff; according to our transition labs, the talent agenda can consume up to a day of an incoming executive’s time for this period. For example, given the average tenure of CFOs or CIOs—around five years—the opportunity cost of low-performing staff can be a significant drag on the progress toward an executive’s agenda during the first year.

Replacing or reassigning staff or remediating performance will require partnership with human resources across multiple dimensions. Depending on existing performance management systems, replacing staff can take time to build the case for dismissal. Furthermore, existing compensation systems may need to be renegotiated to recruit critical talent. Reassigning staff to roles they are best suited for and providing coaching and training programs to staff is also likely to require HR support. Thus, it is important to get HR on board as quickly as possible to assist with your talent agenda.

The Takeaway

Nearly every incoming executive has to critically assess the talent on their teams to deliver their key priorities. Getting the right people in the right seats as quickly as possible is likely to free up your time to attend to the truly important issues. A few key questions can help you identify where you may have to replace key staff, reassign staff to other roles they are better suited for, or invest in training and coaching to upgrade their skills.

—Produced by Dr. Ajit Kambil, global research director for Deloitte LLP’s CFO program and the creator of Deloitte’s Executive Transition Labs, and originally published in Deloitte University Press.

Related Deloitte Insights

First-time or newly hired CFOs need to make critical decisions early on about who to place in top positions, or risk being saddled with an underperforming team that can hamper the CFO’s ability to meet their strategic goals. Dr. Ajit Kambil, global research director for Deloitte’s CFO Program and creator of its Executive Transition Lab, explains why so much depends on the talent decisions CFOs make in their first 180 days, and describes techniques for effectively evaluating and developing finance staffers.

As businesses become increasingly digital, corporate boards are beginning to realize that technology expertise is a powerful asset, according to new Deloitte research. The analysis shows that the number of technology-focused board members in all public companies remains low, although it has increased over the last six years. Consider how CIOs and other business-savvy technologists can help corporate boards understand and oversee technology-driven initiatives and opportunities.

Women are still largely underrepresented on corporate boards, despite continued efforts to improve boardroom gender diversity, according to the fifth edition of Deloitte Global’s Women in the Boardroom: A Global Perspective. The report, which explores efforts by more than 60 countries to improve gender diversity, reveals that 15% of all board seats are filled by women globally, representing a 3% increase since the 2015 edition of the publication. The report also found that organizations with women in top leadership positions are more likely to have women board members, and vice versa.

Views & Analysis

Many executives believe that the manufacturing sector is vulnerable to emerging and dynamic cyber risks, given the industry’s pace of technology change due to innovations in shop floor automation and connected products, according to a study by Deloitte and The Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation (MAPI). Learn about escalation frameworks and the type of leadership and talent that are needed to address cyber risks effectively, as well as questions boards can ask to determine how cyber risks are being detected, managed and mitigated.

For the travel, hospitality and leisure sector, external shocks—such as terrorist attacks and the Zika epidemic—are impacting consumer travel decisions and reshaping their travel preferences. At the same time, the sector is increasingly vulnerable to internal risks such as food safety and cybersecurity. Understand how risk management in the sector is being balanced with the need to innovate, and what boards of directors are doing to become more engaged in risk oversight.

The anti-bribery management standards issued by the Geneva-based International Organization for Standardization (ISO) provide automotive companies, as well as global organizations in other sectors, with new guidance and tools that could potentially help mitigate the risks and costs of noncompliance with anti-bribery laws. Learn about the global nature of the new ISO guidance, as well as other considerations for any organization considering incorporating it into their ethics and compliance program.

Editor's Choice

Boards and C-suite executives overwhelmingly see risk as having an important role in value creation, but just 17% of respondents say they are actively using risk to drive returns, according to a new global survey from Deloitte. The survey also found that senior stakeholders want chief risk officers to spend significantly more time playing the strategist role, with a majority of respondents saying their risk officers should participate more in setting the strategic direction of the company and aligning risk management strategies accordingly.

Traditionally, internal audit (IA) has focused on providing assurance with respect to known risks and the effectiveness of controls in mitigating those risks. Regulators, however, are increasingly interested in an organization’s ability to identify blind spots and other vulnerabilities that may undermine the integrity of the risk management environment, including the risk of misconduct. IA functions can play a pivotal role by substantively testing culture and identifying potential risk-related outliers that may not be visible via other means, such as supervisory frameworks, escalations, compliance assessment and testing, and previous audits.

Identifying and managing strategic risks can be a difficult task. To add to the challenge, many companies have traditionally separated their risk and strategy functions and think of risk as more of a compliance responsibility rather than a dynamic tool for value creation, business performance management and growth. However, companies that align strategy and risk can be better served to allow for a process of “strategic resiliency,” which involves anticipating, knowing and acting on risks when introducing or executing new strategies as a way of increasing the chances of success in spite of uncertainty.

About Deloitte Insights

Deloitte’s Insights for C-suite executives and board members provide information and resources to help address the challenges of managing risk for both value creation and protection, as well as increasing compliance requirements.